Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
age	43	50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)	50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)	51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)	0.747
gender	43				0.449
f		29 (67%)	13 (62%)	16 (73%)
m		14 (33%)	8 (38%)	6 (27%)
occupation	43				0.978
full_time		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
homemaker		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
other		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
part_time		7 (16%)	4 (19%)	3 (14%)
retired		13 (30%)	6 (29%)	7 (32%)
self_employ		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
t_and_e		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
unemploy		10 (23%)	5 (24%)	5 (23%)
marital	43				0.892
divore		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
married		8 (19%)	3 (14%)	5 (23%)
none		24 (56%)	12 (57%)	12 (55%)
seperation		3 (7.0%)	2 (9.5%)	1 (4.5%)
widow		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
edu	43				0.399
bachelor		13 (30%)	5 (24%)	8 (36%)
diploma		7 (16%)	5 (24%)	2 (9.1%)
hd_ad		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
postgraduate		4 (9.3%)	2 (9.5%)	2 (9.1%)
primary		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
secondary_1_3		2 (4.7%)	0 (0%)	2 (9.1%)
secondary_4_5		10 (23%)	7 (33%)	3 (14%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.3%)	0 (0%)	1 (4.5%)
fam_income	43				0.881
10001_12000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
12001_14000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
16001_18000		2 (4.7%)	1 (4.8%)	1 (4.5%)
18001_20000		1 (2.3%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (21%)	6 (29%)	3 (14%)
2001_4000		5 (12%)	2 (9.5%)	3 (14%)
4001_6000		6 (14%)	3 (14%)	3 (14%)
6001_8000		5 (12%)	3 (14%)	2 (9.1%)
8001_10000		3 (7.0%)	1 (4.8%)	2 (9.1%)
below_2000		4 (9.3%)	1 (4.8%)	3 (14%)
medication	43	37 (86%)	17 (81%)	20 (91%)	0.412
onset_duration	43	16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)	17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)	15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)	0.519
onset_age	43	34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)	32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)	36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)	0.334
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 431	control, N = 211	treatment, N = 221	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	43	3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)	3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.761
recovery_stage_b	43	18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)	18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)	18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)	0.938
ras_confidence	43	30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)	30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)	31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)	0.545
ras_willingness	43	12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)	12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)	12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)	0.959
ras_goal	43	17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)	17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)	17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)	0.833
ras_reliance	43	13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)	13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)	13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)	0.680
ras_domination	43	10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)	9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)	0.036
symptom	43	29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)	28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)	30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)	0.614
slof_work	43	22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)	23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)	22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)	0.571
slof_relationship	43	26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)	26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)	25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)	0.496
satisfaction	43	21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)	19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)	22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)	0.204
mhc_emotional	43	11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)	11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)	12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)	0.435
mhc_social	43	14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)	15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)	14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)	0.733
mhc_psychological	43	22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)	21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)	22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)	0.473
resilisnce	43	16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)	16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)	17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)	0.897
social_provision	43	13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)	13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)	13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)	0.638
els_value_living	43	17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)	16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)	17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)	0.558
els_life_fulfill	43	13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)	12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)	13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)	0.096
els	43	30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)	29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)	31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)	0.201
social_connect	43	26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)	27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)	26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)	0.897
shs_agency	43	14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)	13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)	14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)	0.537
shs_pathway	43	16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)	16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)	17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)	0.390
shs	43	30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)	29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)	31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)	0.434
esteem	43	12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)	12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)	12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)	0.364
mlq_search	43	15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)	15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)	0.972
mlq_presence	43	13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)	14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)	13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)	0.464
mlq	43	28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)	29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)	28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)	0.676
empower	43	19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)	20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)	19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)	0.837
ismi_resistance	43	14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)	14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)	14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)	0.960
ismi_discrimation	43	11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)	12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)	10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)	0.100
sss_affective	43	9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)	9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)	9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)	0.494
sss_behavior	43	9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)	10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)	8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)	0.318
sss_cognitive	43	7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)	7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)	8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)	0.647
sss	43	26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)	27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)	25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)	0.642
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.38	0.263	2.86, 3.90
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.119	0.368	-0.603, 0.841	0.748
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.775	0.547	-0.296, 1.85	0.169
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.043	0.914	-1.75, 1.84	0.962
	Pseudo R square	0.058
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.4	0.583	17.3, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.065	0.815	-1.66, 1.53	0.937
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.679	0.474	-1.61, 0.251	0.195
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.54	0.820	-0.068, 3.15	0.102
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	30.2	1.037	28.2, 32.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.898	1.450	-1.94, 3.74	0.539
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.510	0.852	-1.16, 2.18	0.568
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.044	1.472	-2.84, 2.93	0.977
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.3	0.442	11.4, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.032	0.618	-1.18, 1.24	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.586	0.667	-1.89, 0.722	0.404
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.677	1.143	-1.56, 2.92	0.568
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.6	0.673	16.3, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.201	0.941	-1.64, 2.04	0.832
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.045	0.482	-0.900, 0.989	0.928
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.073	0.833	-1.56, 1.71	0.933
	Pseudo R square	0.001
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.2	0.683	11.9, 14.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.398	0.955	-1.47, 2.27	0.679
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.033	0.496	-0.940, 1.01	0.948
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.739	0.858	-0.943, 2.42	0.416
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.0	0.502	9.97, 11.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.54	0.702	-2.92, -0.168	0.033
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.969	0.940	-2.81, 0.874	0.318
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.01	1.594	-0.113, 6.13	0.075
	Pseudo R square	0.102
symptom	(Intercept)	28.9	2.254	24.4, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.60	3.151	-4.58, 7.77	0.615
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.27	2.240	-5.66, 3.12	0.587
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.64	3.865	-5.93, 9.22	0.683
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_work	(Intercept)	23.4	1.097	21.3, 25.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.883	1.533	-3.89, 2.12	0.568
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.55	0.617	-2.76, -0.340	0.040
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.37	1.067	-0.718, 3.47	0.239
	Pseudo R square	0.012
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.0	1.264	24.5, 29.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.23	1.767	-4.69, 2.24	0.492
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-2.59	0.913	-4.38, -0.798	0.024
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	4.07	1.578	0.976, 7.16	0.035
	Pseudo R square	0.023
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	1.487	16.9, 22.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.69	2.079	-1.39, 6.76	0.203
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.79	1.092	0.648, 4.93	0.038
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.743	1.888	-4.44, 2.96	0.706
	Pseudo R square	0.047
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.1	0.746	9.68, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.857	1.043	-1.19, 2.90	0.415
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.47	1.440	-1.35, 4.29	0.354
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.631	2.434	-4.14, 5.40	0.804
	Pseudo R square	0.047
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.2	1.152	12.9, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.509	1.610	-3.66, 2.65	0.754
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.88	1.884	-0.808, 6.58	0.143
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.89	3.218	-10.2, 2.42	0.242
	Pseudo R square	0.042
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.6	1.352	18.9, 24.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.38	1.890	-2.32, 5.09	0.468
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.81	2.435	-2.96, 6.58	0.471
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.28	4.138	-10.4, 5.83	0.590
	Pseudo R square	0.014
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.9	1.031	14.8, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.188	1.442	-2.64, 3.01	0.897
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.400	0.653	-0.879, 1.68	0.559
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.89	1.129	-5.11, -0.682	0.037
	Pseudo R square	0.015
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.4	0.734	12.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.481	1.026	-1.53, 2.49	0.642
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.633	0.715	-2.03, 0.770	0.405
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.41	1.235	-1.01, 3.83	0.289
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.9	0.666	15.6, 18.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.552	0.931	-1.27, 2.38	0.556
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.27	0.795	-0.287, 2.83	0.150
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.33	1.369	-4.01, 1.36	0.361
	Pseudo R square	0.018
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.710	10.8, 13.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.72	0.993	-0.227, 3.66	0.091
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.49	0.765	-0.013, 2.99	0.092
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.12	1.319	-3.70, 1.47	0.424
	Pseudo R square	0.065
els	(Intercept)	29.0	1.242	26.6, 31.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	1.736	-1.13, 5.67	0.198
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.75	1.362	0.085, 5.42	0.080
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.47	2.347	-7.07, 2.13	0.325
	Pseudo R square	0.042
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.0	2.236	22.7, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.411	3.127	-6.54, 5.72	0.896
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.79	1.761	-1.66, 5.25	0.341
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	4.11	3.043	-1.85, 10.1	0.217
	Pseudo R square	0.020
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	1.052	11.7, 15.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.922	1.470	-1.96, 3.80	0.534
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.55	0.847	-0.108, 3.21	0.110
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.865	1.464	-3.73, 2.00	0.573
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.2	0.803	14.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.991	1.123	-1.21, 3.19	0.382
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.956	0.682	-0.382, 2.29	0.204
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.320	1.179	-2.63, 1.99	0.794
	Pseudo R square	0.021
shs	(Intercept)	29.9	1.720	26.5, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.91	2.405	-2.80, 6.63	0.431
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.32	0.945	0.464, 4.17	0.044
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.36	1.635	-4.57, 1.84	0.431
	Pseudo R square	0.018
esteem	(Intercept)	12.7	0.271	12.1, 13.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.348	0.378	-1.09, 0.393	0.362
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.00	0.520	-0.020, 2.02	0.080
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.793	0.880	-2.52, 0.932	0.383
	Pseudo R square	0.099
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.2	0.736	13.7, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.037	1.029	-1.98, 2.05	0.972
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.348	0.884	-1.38, 2.08	0.705
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.308	1.522	-2.68, 3.29	0.845
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.1	0.884	12.4, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.916	1.235	-3.34, 1.51	0.463
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.258	0.568	-0.854, 1.37	0.663
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.70	0.981	-3.62, 0.226	0.127
	Pseudo R square	0.027
mlq	(Intercept)	29.3	1.480	26.4, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.879	2.069	-4.93, 3.18	0.673
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.596	1.288	-1.93, 3.12	0.657
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.34	2.224	-5.70, 3.02	0.565
	Pseudo R square	0.008
empower	(Intercept)	20.1	0.950	18.2, 22.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.277	1.328	-2.88, 2.33	0.836
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.081	0.553	-1.16, 1.00	0.887
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.828	0.956	-2.70, 1.05	0.415
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.0	0.583	13.8, 16.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.043	0.815	-1.64, 1.55	0.958
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.546	0.933	-2.38, 1.28	0.576
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.974	1.596	-2.15, 4.10	0.559
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.0	0.661	10.7, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.59	0.924	-3.40, 0.220	0.092
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.31	0.876	-3.02, 0.410	0.171
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.43	1.505	-1.52, 4.38	0.366
	Pseudo R square	0.059
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.95	0.929	8.13, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.907	1.299	-3.45, 1.64	0.489
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.066	0.665	-1.24, 1.37	0.923
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.754	1.149	-3.01, 1.50	0.533
	Pseudo R square	0.015
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.958	8.31, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.339	-4.00, 1.25	0.311
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.53	1.048	-3.59, 0.522	0.185
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.500	1.807	-3.04, 4.04	0.789
	Pseudo R square	0.031
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.48	0.892	5.73, 9.22
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.569	1.247	-1.88, 3.01	0.650
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.57	0.987	-0.368, 3.50	0.154
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.74	1.701	-6.08, 0.592	0.147
	Pseudo R square	0.018
sss	(Intercept)	27.6	2.604	22.5, 32.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.71	3.641	-8.85, 5.43	0.641
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.068	2.057	-4.10, 3.96	0.975
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.30	3.554	-9.27, 4.66	0.537
	Pseudo R square	0.009
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.14) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.86, 3.90], t(46) = 12.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(46) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.85], t(46) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.84], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.29, 19.57], t(46) = 31.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.53], t(46) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.25], t(46) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.07, 3.15], t(46) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.22])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.27], t(46) = 29.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.74], t(46) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.18], t(46) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.93], t(46) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 9.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(46) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.63])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.89, 0.72], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 2.92], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.48])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.25, 18.89], t(46) = 26.12, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.04], t(46) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.99], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.71], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.58], t(46) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(46) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.73])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.01], t(46) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.42], t(46) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.78])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.94], t(46) = 21.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.17], t(46) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.07])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.87], t(46) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 6.13], t(46) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.57])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.44, 33.28], t(46) = 12.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.58, 7.77], t(46) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-5.66, 3.12], t(46) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-5.93, 9.22], t(46) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.92])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.58], t(46) = 21.36, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.89, 2.12], t(46) = -0.58, p = 0.565; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.76, -0.34], t(46) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.47], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.48, 29.43], t(46) = 21.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.69, 2.24], t(46) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.40])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.38, -0.80], t(46) = -2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.07, 95% CI [0.98, 7.16], t(46) = 2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.94, 22.77], t(46) = 13.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.39, 6.76], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.99])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.65, 4.93], t(46) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.72])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.44, 2.96], t(46) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.43])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.60], t(46) = 14.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.90], t(46) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.84])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.29], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-4.14, 5.40], t(46) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.57])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.93, 17.45], t(46) = 13.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.66, 2.65], t(46) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 6.58], t(46) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.89, 95% CI [-10.20, 2.42], t(46) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.45])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.92, 24.22], t(46) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.32, 5.09], t(46) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.81, 95% CI [-2.96, 6.58], t(46) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.08])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-10.39, 5.83], t(46) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.96])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.84, 18.88], t(46) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.01], t(46) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.68], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-5.11, -0.68], t(46) = -2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.15, -0.15])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(46) = 18.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(46) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.77], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.83], t(46) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.18])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(46) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.38], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.80])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.83], t(46) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.96])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-4.01, 1.36], t(46) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.46])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(46) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(46) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.01, 2.99], t(46) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-3.81e-03, 0.91])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.47], t(46) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.45])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.61, 31.48], t(46) = 23.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(46) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.00])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.75, 95% CI [0.08, 5.42], t(46) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.01, 0.95])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.47, 95% CI [-7.07, 2.13], t(46) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.37])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.66, 31.43], t(46) = 12.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.54, 5.72], t(46) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [-1.66, 5.25], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.11, 95% CI [-1.85, 10.08], t(46) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.65, 15.78], t(46) = 13.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.80], t(46) = 0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.21], t(46) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.69])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.00], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.43])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(46) = 20.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(46) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.38, 2.29], t(46) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.63, 1.99], t(46) = -0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.56])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.53, 33.28], t(46) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.80, 6.63], t(46) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.32, 95% CI [0.46, 4.17], t(46) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.84], t(46) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.20], t(46) = 46.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.39], t(46) = -0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.02], t(46) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.59])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.93], t(46) = -0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.73])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.75, 16.63], t(46) = 20.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.05], t(46) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.08], t(46) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.68, 3.29], t(46) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.02])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.41, 15.87], t(46) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.34, 1.51], t(46) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.37], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.62, 0.23], t(46) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.06])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.43, 32.23], t(46) = 19.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-4.93, 3.18], t(46) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.12], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-5.70, 3.02], t(46) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.47])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(46) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(46) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.00], t(46) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.05], t(46) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.26])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.10], t(46) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(46) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.38, 1.28], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-2.15, 4.10], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.60])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(46) = 18.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.40, 0.22], t(46) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.07])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.02, 0.41], t(46) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.38], t(46) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.44])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(46) = 10.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(46) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.37], t(46) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.50], t(46) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.35])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.31, 12.07], t(46) = 10.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.00, 1.25], t(46) = -1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.59, 0.52], t(46) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-3.04, 4.04], t(46) = 0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.92])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(46) = 8.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.01], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.50], t(46) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.87])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.59], t(46) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.15])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(46) = 10.61, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.85, 5.43], t(46) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-4.10, 3.96], t(46) = -0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = -5.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.30, 95% CI [-9.27, 4.66], t(46) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.40])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	172.360	178.214	-83.180	166.360
recovery_stage_a	random	6	174.923	186.630	-81.461	162.923	3.437	3	0.329
recovery_stage_b	null	3	240.118	245.972	-117.059	234.118
recovery_stage_b	random	6	242.319	254.026	-115.159	230.319	3.799	3	0.284
ras_confidence	null	3	297.385	303.238	-145.692	291.385
ras_confidence	random	6	302.441	314.148	-145.220	290.441	0.944	3	0.815
ras_willingness	null	3	219.267	225.121	-106.634	213.267
ras_willingness	random	6	224.287	235.995	-106.144	212.287	0.980	3	0.806
ras_goal	null	3	249.066	254.920	-121.533	243.066
ras_goal	random	6	254.984	266.692	-121.492	242.984	0.082	3	0.994
ras_reliance	null	3	252.442	258.296	-123.221	246.442
ras_reliance	random	6	256.799	268.506	-122.399	244.799	1.643	3	0.650
ras_domination	null	3	241.582	247.435	-117.791	235.582
ras_domination	random	6	240.843	252.551	-114.422	228.843	6.739	3	0.081
symptom	null	3	381.230	387.084	-187.615	375.230
symptom	random	6	386.521	398.229	-187.261	374.521	0.709	3	0.871
slof_work	null	3	301.065	306.919	-147.532	295.065
slof_work	random	6	301.475	313.183	-144.738	289.475	5.590	3	0.133
slof_relationship	null	3	321.924	327.778	-157.962	315.924
slof_relationship	random	6	320.700	332.407	-154.350	308.700	7.224	3	0.065
satisfaction	null	3	341.122	346.976	-167.561	335.122
satisfaction	random	6	337.934	349.641	-162.967	325.934	9.188	3	0.027
mhc_emotional	null	3	278.581	284.435	-136.291	272.581
mhc_emotional	random	6	282.337	294.045	-135.169	270.337	2.244	3	0.523
mhc_social	null	3	322.403	328.257	-158.202	316.403
mhc_social	random	6	325.241	336.948	-156.620	313.241	3.162	3	0.367
mhc_psychological	null	3	338.302	344.155	-166.151	332.302
mhc_psychological	random	6	343.341	355.049	-165.671	331.341	0.960	3	0.811
resilisnce	null	3	297.500	303.354	-145.750	291.500
resilisnce	random	6	297.210	308.917	-142.605	285.210	6.290	3	0.098
social_provision	null	3	265.511	271.365	-129.755	259.511
social_provision	random	6	269.512	281.219	-128.756	257.512	1.999	3	0.573
els_value_living	null	3	259.857	265.711	-126.929	253.857
els_value_living	random	6	262.892	274.600	-125.446	250.892	2.965	3	0.397
els_life_fulfill	null	3	268.337	274.191	-131.169	262.337
els_life_fulfill	random	6	267.810	279.518	-127.905	255.810	6.527	3	0.089
els	null	3	325.782	331.636	-159.891	319.782
els	random	6	326.225	337.933	-157.113	314.225	5.557	3	0.135
social_connect	null	3	380.741	386.595	-187.371	374.741
social_connect	random	6	381.592	393.299	-184.796	369.592	5.150	3	0.161
shs_agency	null	3	301.757	307.610	-147.878	295.757
shs_agency	random	6	303.510	315.218	-145.755	291.510	4.246	3	0.236
shs_pathway	null	3	273.745	279.599	-133.872	267.745
shs_pathway	random	6	276.415	288.122	-132.207	264.415	3.330	3	0.344
shs	null	3	348.659	354.513	-171.330	342.659
shs	random	6	347.883	359.590	-167.941	335.883	6.777	3	0.079
esteem	null	3	177.000	182.854	-85.500	171.000
esteem	random	6	176.974	188.681	-82.487	164.974	6.026	3	0.110
mlq_search	null	3	267.887	273.740	-130.943	261.887
mlq_search	random	6	273.434	285.141	-130.717	261.434	0.453	3	0.929
mlq_presence	null	3	279.560	285.414	-136.780	273.560
mlq_presence	random	6	281.388	293.095	-134.694	269.388	4.172	3	0.243
mlq	null	3	335.174	341.028	-164.587	329.174
mlq	random	6	340.423	352.130	-164.212	328.423	0.751	3	0.861
empower	null	3	282.824	288.677	-138.412	276.824
empower	random	6	287.142	298.850	-137.571	275.142	1.681	3	0.641
ismi_resistance	null	3	248.621	254.475	-121.311	242.621
ismi_resistance	random	6	254.028	265.735	-121.014	242.028	0.594	3	0.898
ismi_discrimation	null	3	262.717	268.570	-128.358	256.717
ismi_discrimation	random	6	263.935	275.642	-125.967	251.935	4.782	3	0.188
sss_affective	null	3	283.671	289.525	-138.836	277.671
sss_affective	random	6	288.539	300.247	-138.270	276.539	1.132	3	0.769
sss_behavior	null	3	296.937	302.790	-145.468	290.937
sss_behavior	random	6	299.215	310.922	-143.607	287.215	3.722	3	0.293
sss_cognitive	null	3	289.551	295.405	-141.776	283.551
sss_cognitive	random	6	292.006	303.713	-140.003	280.006	3.546	3	0.315
sss	null	3	392.465	398.318	-193.232	386.465
sss	random	6	397.476	409.183	-192.738	385.476	0.989	3	0.804

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	21	3.38 ± 1.21		22	3.50 ± 1.21		0.748	-0.103
recovery_stage_a	2nd	6	4.16 ± 1.32	-0.672	3	4.32 ± 1.34	-0.710	0.864	-0.141
recovery_stage_b	1st	21	18.43 ± 2.67		22	18.36 ± 2.67		0.937	0.078
recovery_stage_b	2nd	6	17.75 ± 1.74	0.812	3	19.22 ± 1.47	-1.028	0.193	-1.762
ras_confidence	1st	21	30.24 ± 4.75		22	31.14 ± 4.75		0.539	-0.598
ras_confidence	2nd	6	30.75 ± 3.10	-0.339	3	31.69 ± 2.63	-0.368	0.637	-0.627
ras_willingness	1st	21	12.29 ± 2.03		22	12.32 ± 2.03		0.958	-0.026
ras_willingness	2nd	6	11.70 ± 1.79	0.472	3	12.41 ± 1.74	-0.073	0.574	-0.571
ras_goal	1st	21	17.57 ± 3.08		22	17.77 ± 3.08		0.832	-0.238
ras_goal	2nd	6	17.62 ± 1.93	-0.053	3	17.89 ± 1.59	-0.139	0.822	-0.324
ras_reliance	1st	21	13.24 ± 3.13		22	13.64 ± 3.13		0.679	-0.457
ras_reliance	2nd	6	13.27 ± 1.97	-0.038	3	14.41 ± 1.62	-0.886	0.363	-1.304
ras_domination	1st	21	10.95 ± 2.30		22	9.41 ± 2.30		0.033	0.829
ras_domination	2nd	6	9.98 ± 2.37	0.521	3	11.45 ± 2.38	-1.097	0.390	-0.788
symptom	1st	21	28.86 ± 10.33		22	30.45 ± 10.33		0.615	-0.401
symptom	2nd	6	27.58 ± 7.25	0.319	3	30.83 ± 6.43	-0.093	0.501	-0.813
slof_work	1st	21	23.43 ± 5.03		22	22.55 ± 5.03		0.568	0.820
slof_work	2nd	6	21.88 ± 2.98	1.438	3	22.37 ± 2.33	0.162	0.788	-0.456
slof_relationship	1st	21	26.95 ± 5.79		22	25.73 ± 5.79		0.492	0.764
slof_relationship	2nd	6	24.37 ± 3.63	1.614	3	27.21 ± 2.99	-0.924	0.220	-1.774
satisfaction	1st	21	19.86 ± 6.82		22	22.55 ± 6.82		0.203	-1.401
satisfaction	2nd	6	22.65 ± 4.30	-1.453	3	24.59 ± 3.55	-1.066	0.476	-1.014
mhc_emotional	1st	21	11.14 ± 3.42		22	12.00 ± 3.42		0.415	-0.297
mhc_emotional	2nd	6	12.61 ± 3.59	-0.508	3	14.10 ± 3.63	-0.727	0.564	-0.515
mhc_social	1st	21	15.19 ± 5.28		22	14.68 ± 5.28		0.754	0.143
mhc_social	2nd	6	18.07 ± 4.93	-0.809	3	13.67 ± 4.86	0.282	0.216	1.234
mhc_psychological	1st	21	21.57 ± 6.20		22	22.95 ± 6.20		0.468	-0.292
mhc_psychological	2nd	6	23.38 ± 6.20	-0.381	3	22.49 ± 6.20	0.099	0.840	0.188
resilisnce	1st	21	16.86 ± 4.73		22	17.05 ± 4.73		0.897	-0.165
resilisnce	2nd	6	17.26 ± 2.87	-0.350	3	14.55 ± 2.30	2.183	0.134	2.368
social_provision	1st	21	13.43 ± 3.36		22	13.91 ± 3.36		0.642	-0.378
social_provision	2nd	6	12.80 ± 2.34	0.497	3	14.68 ± 2.07	-0.609	0.229	-1.484
els_value_living	1st	21	16.86 ± 3.05		22	17.41 ± 3.05		0.556	-0.385
els_value_living	2nd	6	18.13 ± 2.34	-0.886	3	17.35 ± 2.16	0.038	0.628	0.540
els_life_fulfill	1st	21	12.19 ± 3.25		22	13.91 ± 3.25		0.091	-1.255
els_life_fulfill	2nd	6	13.68 ± 2.37	-1.086	3	14.28 ± 2.14	-0.270	0.705	-0.440
els	1st	21	29.05 ± 5.69		22	31.32 ± 5.69		0.198	-0.931
els	2nd	6	31.80 ± 4.18	-1.129	3	31.60 ± 3.79	-0.116	0.943	0.082
social_connect	1st	21	27.05 ± 10.25		22	26.64 ± 10.25		0.896	0.133
social_connect	2nd	6	28.84 ± 6.60	-0.579	3	32.54 ± 5.54	-1.904	0.383	-1.193
shs_agency	1st	21	13.71 ± 4.82		22	14.64 ± 4.82		0.534	-0.618
shs_agency	2nd	6	15.27 ± 3.13	-1.040	3	15.32 ± 2.64	-0.461	0.977	-0.039
shs_pathway	1st	21	16.19 ± 3.68		22	17.18 ± 3.68		0.382	-0.823
shs_pathway	2nd	6	17.15 ± 2.43	-0.793	3	17.82 ± 2.08	-0.527	0.670	-0.557
shs	1st	21	29.90 ± 7.88		22	31.82 ± 7.88		0.431	-1.159
shs	2nd	6	32.22 ± 4.65	-1.404	3	32.77 ± 3.63	-0.577	0.847	-0.332
esteem	1st	21	12.67 ± 1.24		22	12.32 ± 1.24		0.362	0.334
esteem	2nd	6	13.67 ± 1.30	-0.959	3	12.52 ± 1.31	-0.198	0.226	1.095
mlq_search	1st	21	15.19 ± 3.37		22	15.23 ± 3.37		0.972	-0.023
mlq_search	2nd	6	15.54 ± 2.60	-0.218	3	15.88 ± 2.40	-0.411	0.846	-0.216
mlq_presence	1st	21	14.14 ± 4.05		22	13.23 ± 4.05		0.463	0.921
mlq_presence	2nd	6	14.40 ± 2.47	-0.260	3	11.79 ± 1.98	1.449	0.095	2.630
mlq	1st	21	29.33 ± 6.78		22	28.45 ± 6.78		0.673	0.386
mlq	2nd	6	29.93 ± 4.52	-0.262	3	27.71 ± 3.88	0.328	0.451	0.976
empower	1st	21	20.10 ± 4.35		22	19.82 ± 4.35		0.836	0.287
empower	2nd	6	20.01 ± 2.60	0.084	3	18.91 ± 2.04	0.941	0.490	1.144
ismi_resistance	1st	21	14.95 ± 2.67		22	14.91 ± 2.67		0.958	0.025
ismi_resistance	2nd	6	14.41 ± 2.46	0.311	3	15.34 ± 2.41	-0.243	0.593	-0.529
ismi_discrimation	1st	21	12.00 ± 3.03		22	10.41 ± 3.03		0.092	0.996
ismi_discrimation	2nd	6	10.69 ± 2.46	0.817	3	10.54 ± 2.33	-0.079	0.926	0.099
sss_affective	1st	21	9.95 ± 4.26		22	9.05 ± 4.26		0.489	0.777
sss_affective	2nd	6	10.02 ± 2.66	-0.057	3	8.36 ± 2.19	0.589	0.327	1.423
sss_behavior	1st	21	10.19 ± 4.39		22	8.82 ± 4.39		0.311	0.731
sss_behavior	2nd	6	8.66 ± 3.22	0.816	3	7.79 ± 2.92	0.550	0.687	0.464
sss_cognitive	1st	21	7.48 ± 4.09		22	8.05 ± 4.09		0.650	-0.322
sss_cognitive	2nd	6	9.04 ± 3.02	-0.885	3	6.87 ± 2.74	0.664	0.291	1.227
sss	1st	21	27.62 ± 11.93		22	25.91 ± 11.93		0.641	0.472
sss	2nd	6	27.55 ± 7.69	0.019	3	23.54 ± 6.46	0.654	0.417	1.107

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(47.89) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)

2st

t(45.85) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.06)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(41.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.58)

2st

t(29.06) = 1.33, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.76, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.74)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.73) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.03 to 3.83)

2st

t(28.75) = 0.48, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.99)

ras_willingness

1st

t(44.08) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)

2st

t(19.87) = 0.57, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.30)

ras_goal

1st

t(41.55) = 0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.10)

2st

t(33.61) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.73)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.56) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.33)

2st

t(33.06) = 0.92, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.65)

ras_domination

1st

t(46.51) = -2.20, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.13)

2st

t(29.40) = 0.87, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.97 to 4.90)

symptom

1st

t(42.12) = 0.51, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-4.76 to 7.96)

2st

t(23.36) = 0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-6.57 to 13.05)

slof_work

1st

t(41.33) = -0.58, p = 0.568, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.21)

2st

t(42.09) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 4.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(41.56) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-4.79 to 2.34)

2st

t(33.31) = 1.25, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.77, 95% CI (-1.79 to 7.48)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.58) = 1.29, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-1.51 to 6.89)

2st

t(32.69) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-3.55 to 7.44)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.95) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.95)

2st

t(33.11) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-3.71 to 6.69)

mhc_social

1st

t(44.81) = -0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.75 to 2.74)

2st

t(21.40) = -1.27, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-11.57 to 2.77)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(45.95) = 0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.42 to 5.19)

2st

t(25.90) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-9.91 to 8.13)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.42) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 3.10)

2st

t(38.17) = -1.53, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.29 to 0.88)

social_provision

1st

t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)

2st

t(23.82) = 1.24, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.04)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.72) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.43)

2st

t(20.19) = -0.49, p = 0.628, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.05 to 2.50)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.35) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(21.70) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.66 to 3.86)

els

1st

t(42.40) = 1.31, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)

2st

t(21.39) = -0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.96 to 5.56)

social_connect

1st

t(41.67) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.72 to 5.90)

2st

t(30.20) = 0.89, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-4.84 to 12.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(41.70) = 0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.89)

2st

t(29.41) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.00 to 4.12)

shs_pathway

1st

t(41.79) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.26)

2st

t(27.66) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.52 to 3.86)

shs

1st

t(41.31) = 0.80, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-2.94 to 6.77)

2st

t(42.77) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.15 to 6.25)

esteem

1st

t(46.89) = -0.92, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.41)

2st

t(32.48) = -1.23, p = 0.226, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-3.03 to 0.74)

mlq_search

1st

t(42.74) = 0.04, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.11)

2st

t(20.13) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.30 to 3.98)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.43) = -0.74, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.41 to 1.58)

2st

t(37.64) = -1.72, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 2.63, 95% CI (-5.70 to 0.47)

mlq

1st

t(41.83) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.05 to 3.30)

2st

t(26.93) = -0.77, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-8.17 to 3.73)

empower

1st

t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)

2st

t(41.03) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.10)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(44.59) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.60)

2st

t(20.85) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.64 to 4.50)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.21) = -1.72, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.45 to 0.27)

2st

t(19.42) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.67 to 3.35)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.72)

2st

t(33.66) = -1.00, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-5.05 to 1.73)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.40) = -1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.33)

2st

t(21.43) = -0.41, p = 0.687, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.57)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.43) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.95 to 3.09)

2st

t(21.24) = -1.08, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-6.34 to 1.99)

sss

1st

t(41.67) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-9.06 to 5.64)

2st

t(30.09) = -0.82, p = 0.417, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-13.97 to 5.94)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(33.55) = 1.01, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.46)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(7.67) = 1.27, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(7.69) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.28 to 3.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(10.87) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.25)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(7.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(7.52) = 1.09, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.42)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(18.37) = 1.46, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.90 to 4.98)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(8.09) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-7.04 to 7.78)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(7.29) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.23 to 1.88)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = 1.14, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.55 to 4.52)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = 1.31, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.59 to 5.68)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(21.10) = 0.98, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-2.37 to 6.57)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.40) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.05 to 5.04)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.85) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-8.16 to 7.22)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(7.38) = -2.69, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 2.18, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.04) = 0.75, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.14)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(8.79) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.67 to 2.56)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(8.35) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(8.41) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.77)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(7.62) = 2.35, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 11.76)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(7.65) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.50)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(7.74) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.90)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(7.28) = 0.71, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.20 to 4.10)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.63) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.82)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(8.82) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.25 to 3.56)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(7.39) = -1.78, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.45)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(7.78) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.02 to 3.52)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = -1.16, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-2.75 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.92) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.57 to 3.43)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(9.45) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.74 to 2.99)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(7.50) = -0.73, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.42)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(8.45) = -0.83, p = 0.864, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.43 to 2.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(7.62) = -0.81, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-9.20 to 4.46)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(24.21) = 1.32, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.99)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(7.55) = -1.41, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(7.56) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(9.99) = -0.84, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.97)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(7.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.18)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(7.42) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.20)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(15.01) = -0.96, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.18)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(7.88) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.55 to 4.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(7.24) = -2.50, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-3.01 to -0.09)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(7.42) = -2.81, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 1.61, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.43)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(7.43) = 2.53, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (0.21 to 5.37)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(16.69) = 0.95, p = 0.711, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.80 to 4.74)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(11.08) = 1.45, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.48 to 7.25)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(13.40) = 0.70, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 7.39)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(7.31) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.94)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(7.84) = -0.87, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.05)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(8.43) = 1.56, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(8.08) = 1.90, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(8.13) = 1.98, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-0.45 to 5.95)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = 1.01, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.36 to 5.95)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = 1.81, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.55)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(7.60) = 1.38, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.56)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(7.23) = 2.44, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (0.08 to 4.55)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(16.41) = 1.79, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(8.45) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(7.32) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.60)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(7.64) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.44 to 3.63)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(7.26) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.22)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(10.73) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.71 to 1.62)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.94) = -1.44, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.74)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(7.41) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.63)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(8.13) = -1.43, p = 0.380, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-4.00 to 0.93)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(8.16) = 1.55, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.75 to 3.89)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(7.51) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.92 to 4.78)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance